# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 2- 27 29

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Den ni s J am es Gaed e
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Ja m es T. Pod reb arac ; Lea nn K. Bert sc h; W arre n Em m er; Tim

Sch ue tz le ; Kat hy Bach m ei er
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of No rth Dako ta - Bi sm arck

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 28 , 20 13 Fi le d: Marc h 8 , 20 13 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re BYE, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.I nm at e Den ni s Ja m es Gaed e ap pe al s fo ll owi ng th e di st ric t co ur t’s ad v e r s e 1
gr an t of su m

m ary jud gm en t in hi s 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 act io n. Upo n de no vo rev ie w of th e reco rd , se e Mas on v. Co rr. Med

. Serv s., In c., 55 9 F

. 3 d 8 8 0, 88 4- 85 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ), we fin d no ba si s fo r ov ert ur ni ng th e gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t to de fen da nt de nt is t Ja m es T. Po dr eb arac , se e Bea ul ie u v. Lud em an , 69 0 F.3 d 10 17 , 10 24 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (co njec tu re an d sp ecu la ti o n a r e i ns uf fic ie nt to de feat su m

m ary jud gm en t); M a so n, 55 9 F.3 d at 88 5 (in m at e co ul d no t rel y on in ad m is si bl e he ars ay to a v o i d

su m m ary jud gm en t); se e al so Nels on v. Sh uf fm an , 60 3 F.3 d 43 9, 44 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (in m at es ha ve no co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht to rece iv e req ue s t e d or pa rti cu la r co ur se of
tre at m en t, an d pr is on do ct or is free to e x e r ci se in de pe nd en t m ed ic al jud gm en t; in m at e’s m ere di ffer en ce of op in io n on m at te rs req ui rin g m ed ic al jud gm en t do es no t ris e to le ve l of co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n)

. As to th e rem ai ni ng de fen da nt s, th ey m erel y 2

res p o n d ed to Gaed e’s gr ie va nc es , an d in do in g so , th ey co ns ul te d wit h Dr. Po dr eb arac

. C f

. M el oy v. Bac hm ei er, 30 2 F.3 d 84 5, 84 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (p ris on ’s

m ed ic al tre at m en t di rect or who la ck ed m ed ic al ex pe rti se co ul d no t be li ab le fo r

m ed ic al st aff’s di ag no st ic de ci si on s)

. Fi na ll y , to th e ex te nt Gaed e is ch al le ng in g th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of hi s m ot io n fo r reco ns id erat io n, we fin d n o a bu se of di sc ret io n. See Arn ol d v. ADT Sec. Serv s., In c., 62 7 F.3 d 7 1 6 , 72 1- 22 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). The ju dg m en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

T he H onor ab le Dan ie l L. Hov la nd , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of Nor th Dak ot a, ad op ti ng th e rep or t an d reco m m en da ti on s of th e Hon or ab le Ch arl es S. Mi ll er, Un it ed Sta te s M ag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct of No rth Dako ta

. Gaed e ha s waiv ed hi s cl ai m s ag ai ns t W arre n Em m er. See Carr ah er v. Targ et 2 Co rp ., 50 3 F .3d 71 4, 7 16 n.2 (8t h C ir. 2 00 7)

. -2

-